To think an annual property tax is incredibly unfair?

@bellic - enough tax will never be raised given the number of takers.

With the size of the welfare state most wont qualify, it's private rental and flats with unknown services charges for workers.

We disagree because I believe people are entitled to housing stability, whether they rent or own their home. Those who have worked, paid taxes and contributed throughout their lives should not be expected to lose that security simply to fund general government spending.

If someone needs to contribute towards their own care home costs, that is reasonable. But forcing people to take on more debt against their home, or worse still sell it, in order to fund wider public spending is not. I don't think most people would consider that reasonable.

In your winners and lowers world we end up with the extraordinary situation of people losing their own housing stability to ensure someone else wins more benefits. I don't believe that's what the welfare state was ever meant to be.

I have no idea what tax policy this glib response is referring to?

But fair or not fair - a tax policy that costs more money than it saves is a poor economic decision.

Time for the poll tax. That is now fair, every working adult pays the same amount. Afterall most goes to social care so why shouldnt everyone pay their share.

Let me know if I’m mistaken but I didn’t realise this legislation had been discussed let alone announced.

And you fail to recognise that single people one income are always the losers every single year, every single budget.

Now with lvt we lost the discount and pay more. Do you think that's fair? That if you do not find someone to marry or have children you for your whole life pay for it more than others. Never an exemption or helping hand ever.

The applications for social housing will balloon! Buying a house will be seen as a mug’s game.

What asset tax do you think would be fair then? You can buy an asset if you like, but you ought to expect the government to look at that and think if you life in a big house you can afford to pay more tax than those who live in a smaller house.

The government has to raise money to pay for public services. It does so by putting taxes on earnings, rental income, dividend and capital gains, trust income, inheritance. It’s only fair they tax assets held too.

Tax should be about raising revenue fairly and efficiently, not creating winners and losers based on the assets people choose to own, especially when that asset is their home and the government has moved the goalposts.

Everyone should have the opportunity to have a secure home, and, last time I looked, it was perfectly legal to own one in this country.

Any tax change produces winners and losers. I think it’s fair and proportionate, you don’t. We disagree. As usual.

So it's not what is fair or proportionate, its about winners and losers. Noted.

Trouble is it’s not just hitting very wealthy people, it will affect people in modest housing as well

You don’t need Elon Musk levels of wealth to pay an annual charge of 0.48% of your property. The vast majority of us will be winners.

I’m not wealthy. And I’m not a man. And I’m sure a good proportion of people who are paying a mortgage do not have Elon Musk levels of money either.

This is affecting ordinary people. Well, apart from renters apparently.

0.48 is mentioned on the Fairer share site too.

You mean a different not fair from the conservative way, where most land and wealth is owned by a few wealthy men ?

It may reduce costs at the top end initially, as people rush to sell, but you're also likely to end up with two, three and four-bedroom homes in more "affordable" areas becoming even more competitive, with downsizers, first-time buyers and growing families all chasing the same homes but in lower lower annual tax bill areas.

People in those homes are likely to stay put unless they really have to move. Home improvements that increase a property's value could also increase the annual tax bill. So do you extend and pay more every year, or just make do? It will be interesting to see what that does to the home improvement market.

I’m fairly sure the 0.48% figure was attached to land value not the building itself.

It’s like every other Labour tax policy, not only is it not fair at all, it will cost them more to implement than the additional tax revenues it will generate.

I wonder the same @MaturingCheeseball . This law is likely to cause an overall fall in house values in the Southeast. Let’s call it “a levelling down”. Will councils recognise this and lower tax charges accordingly? Or will they be lazy, greedy and avaricious? If so, expect a further spiralling downward.

When you think about how many people who bought home in the last 5 years that could not afford to buy those homes now. It's insane.

Nobody knows. He has mentioned both previously. He has also liked Fairer Share.